jedi wrote:

> >
> > Carl Thompson wrote:
> >
> > > John Allen wrote:
> > >
> > > > ...
> > >
> > > > I investigated the Qt license previously for a commercial product, and
> > > > believe me their pricing is anything but horrendous, especially
> > > > considering that their aren't any runtime royalties.
> > >
> > > What pipe are you smoking?  You don't think that paying > $1,000 per
> > > developer is excessive?
> > >
> >
> > No, not for a commercial development company. Having run a commercial
> > development company, a $1000 per developer pales in comparison to the
> > other costs, such as hardware, salary, office space etc....
>
>         It sounds like you tried and failed, not a great testimony.
>         Big successful software development firms very much quibble
>         over these pittance expenses. That's the enviroment that
>         Troll gets to do business in whetehr they like it or not.
>

Well yes, failed in the sense that we ran out of money before we could make any
sales. We did however have the product quite close to  1.0 release. We didn't
use Qt, we opted for StarView, as it was available for the Mac as well,
and our potential customers were major Mac users.

I think Qt is far simpler to code for then MFC, although I think StarView is better

designed. I'd have to say however that I find a number of things about Qt to
be less than stellar. Maybe someday I'll get enough time to write what I
believe would be a better alternative.

I'd be more interested in starting a genuine cross platform toolkit, covering
X, Windows, Mac, and OS/2. This toolkit would have to be layered directly
on the platforms native API's, not just a wrapper to some other toolkit.

If anybody here is actually interested in that, please let me know.

--
John Allen                         email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MAO Technologies LLC.                www: http://www.maotech.ie
Creators of LinuxMT                phone: intl+353-862315986


Reply via email to